My poly isn't your poly - so what?

What I'd like to see in terms of legislation at this point in time is simple.
Any agency charged with determining the suitability of a particular home for children should not be basing their recommendation in any way on the parent/guardian's sex life, unless of course that sex life includes abuse of the children, which to my way of thinking is a totally separate issue.

It is my understanding that this is already the professional standard for licensed social workers. Now, whether an individual social worker adheres to the standard is a different question.

More importantly, the recommendation of the social worker is ONLY a recommendation. The decision is made by the family court judge, to whom the social workers' professional standards don't apply.

If we want to turn things around, we need out polys giving presentations to the next generation of lawyers and judges in law school classes, as well as to the next generation of social workers.
 
Last edited:
The divide isn't clear because one person may consider themselves in a poly relationship and another person may view that relationship as swinging.

People have a tendency to assign their own values to the definitions and then look at how other people manifest that definition through their own lens of values.

We've seen that in these forums when some people think that only a commitment over a long time would qualify as a loving relationship where others view the nature of the connection rather than the quantity of time. Both manifestations can exist under the same definition.

For me, it makes more sense to not assign personal values to definitions because they usually try to make such definitions mean more than they actually mean, and the usual purpose of doing so is to exclude certain identities for the sake of conformity.
 
It is my understanding that this is already the professional standard for licensed social workers. Now, whether an individual social worker adheres to the standard is a different question.

that is interesting. it is certainly the situation here in the UK but i had understood from others than it wasn't in the US. do you know what a US citizen would be able to do should an individual social worker not adhere to that standard? perhaps the folk on this board who seem to believe otherwise are basing that view on individual experiences of individual social workers rather than knowledge of the overall professional standards. it would certainly be interesting to know what a person's rights would be in cases of bad practise and what protection is in place for them.

x
 
i hope i am right in thinking that there is no current threat to your custody of your son, and that this is highly unlikely in the future.

x

While there is perhaps no current threat to Redpepper's son..there is certainly the possibility of that changing based on the ideas and misinterpretations of those around us. And yes, sexual activities beyond the norm can definitely cause a great deal of issue with child protection where we live; especially when those activities are backed up by the concerns and aligations of other family members. Not to say that it could threaten actual custody, but certainly cause tremendous emotional and financial stress, not to mention family disintegration. Not choosing to use a huge umbrella word like polyamory is a safe choice. It's better to speak in clear descriptive terms of each relationship if there is more than yourselves at stake. I think there is more than one person with children on here that feel this way.

I'm fine with people including everything within the word polyamory. I just don't use it anymore except within the community itself.

Peace and love.
Mono
 
It's better to speak in clear descriptive terms of each relationship if there is more than yourselves at stake. I think there is more than one person with children on here that feel this way.

Which is exactly why I find it more productive to challenge the assumptions rather than the word that the assumptions are attached to.
 
I guess what it comes down to is that things don't have to look or even be entirely alike to have things in common. The definitions are only speaking to the elements that these things have in common. In the case of polyamory, love and multiple relationships. It does not specifically exclude the things that we don't have in common (the weight of sex vs love, the nature of how the love manifests) for a good reason. Because then it would also start excluding the things that they do have in common. It's a great way to specifically exclude people from a community.

Indeed, therefore polyamory and swinging may not look alike (to some people) yet they may have many things in common. Hence saying they are not mutually exclusive.

It follows with an example I have used of the spectrum in regards to these two communities. You have two extremes. Those who virulently state that polyamory does not have to include sex and those who state that swinging does not have to include love.

However, when you move towards the center of the spectrum, you get the gray area people. Those who see love in swinging and those who sex in polyamory. Then the "differences" that some claim exist, really aren't there for those who inhabit the gray middle and some degrees from the gray middle. Those who inhabit the middle may use terms swinger and polyamorist while their behaviors are nearly indistinguishable from each other.

Separating the two does not speak to the experience of these individuals and proves divisive.

Understanding the above is the antithesis of not focusing on difference. It is in fact embracing difference where others would use difference to divide.

It is much like what occurred in another thread around one member's use of the word fuckbuddy. Another member insisted that the term lover be used. I have seen people describe their relationships and receive the most audacious response of "oh well that's different, you're not really a swinger, you're poly," because the behavior fit their definition of polyamory yet they totally disregard the individual's perspective and assertion that they are a swinger. And vice versa with the "That's not poly. You're a swinger," deigning to give their true definition of another's relationship and giving no value to that person's chosen self identification.

This is what can come from focusing only on the commonalities and not focusing on understanding and reaching across differences.

Blindness. Utter and complete. To anyone else's experience other than oneself.

~Raven~
 
Last edited:
mono, as i have stated elsewhere on this forum, i have parental responsibility for my niece so this is not just theory for me either.

excluding some people from the poly community, or tightening up definitions of polyamory, is not going to protect anyone from inaccurate accusations.

if someone wants to make a malicious allegation against you they will, regardless of the word(s) you or any other person uses to describe your or their sex and/or love lives.

an unjust system which would judge someone's parenting ability based solely on the sex that person is having (presuming its consensual) needs to be fought against, not the people who are the victims of said prejudice.

not only for ethical reasons, but for the tactical ones i have previously described.

it is in your and your family's best interests that you understand this and get involved in the struggle for us all to have the sex and love lives we choose, and to be allowed to parent well regardless of our sex and love lives.

sorry, edited to add: in my not always very humble opinion!
 
Last edited:
it is in your and your family's best interests that you understand this and get involved in the struggle for us all to have the sex and love lives we choose, and to be allowed to parent well regardless of our sex and love lives.

![/I]

Sorry to disagree my friend, but I think it is better to distance ourselves from the vagueness and large umbrella that certain terms cover. I am no activist but I am trained in other areas to achieve goals. I think tactically as a small unit to protect my own, not in a broader sense of furthering a cause or movement if such a thing exists. From that perspective it is best to simplify and reduce weight or weaknesses to better my position. Therefore I stick to hard and fast definitions and descriptions. Sorry to not be a part of something bigger..not my way.
 
Last edited:
I spoke to Redpepper about my last comment above and she reminded me of one important factor that I should have mentioned. If my actions in trying to protect my own family benefit the community as a whole that that is great! I'm not opposed to working as a group to achieve safety and acceptance for my family, but I do it for my family primarily and not the community.
 
although of course it doesn't have to be either or.

as i said i believe the best way to protect one's family and loved ones from prejudice and untrue allegations is also what is best for the community.

however if actions you take in the belief that they will protect your family (mistaken in my view but clearly not yours) is divisive and damaging to a community i am part of i will never support you, i am afraid. i fully respect your right to do what you think is for the best, don't get me wrong, but i cannot support you in doing so and will speak up to defend myself and my communities.

x
 
redpepper i hope you don't me saying this (i respect your views i just don't entirely understand them). why is it that you are uncomfortable about including sex to the extent you describe? you have, it is true, repeatedly said that you don't like this (or words to that effect) but what i am not understanding and am curious about is why.

i could to some extet understand if the state was threatening to remove your child, because of your sexual activities, but i'd like to seperate any fear you may around that from your general discomfort with the thought that someone somewhere might think you are having more sex, or sex in different contexts, to that which you are having.

i hope i am right in thinking that there is no current threat to your custody of your son, and that this is highly unlikely in the future.

would you mind helping me to understand this by explaining further along the lines i have described?

thank you

x

redpepper and mono, i'd also like to ask - is it that you don't think or want certain behaviours to be part of poly because you don't yourselves approve of those behaviours, or only because you think it is the best tactic to protect your family? is it both? or just the second?

x
 
From that perspective it is best to simplify and reduce weight or weaknesses to better my position. Therefore I stick to hard and fast definitions and descriptions.

But rejecting a word because of the connotations and prejudices attached to the word isn't sticking hard and fast to the definition of the word. It sounds like you're choosing to stick to the descriptions instead of the word in order not to be associated with the prejudices that others may attach to the word.

The only trouble is that by rejecting the word as such, it can appear to other poly people that you hold the same prejudices about people who are poly that that others may hold when they attach such prejudices to the word. This probably isn't the case, but it can come across that way.
 
i fully respect your right to do what you think is for the best, don't get me wrong, but i cannot support you in doing so and will speak up to defend myself and my communities.

x

Don't get me wrong Dakid. I won't attack or try to shape things to fit my needs. That would never be my intention.
I simply won't identify with those that don't further my cause. What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine sort of thing. No hostility, just disassociation with certain terminologies if that is what is deemed necessary.
 
The only trouble is that by rejecting the word as such, it can appear to other poly people that you hold the same prejudices about people who are poly that that others may hold when they attach such prejudices to the word. This probably isn't the case, but it can come across that way.

I totally see your point Ceoli and I agree with you. It certainly could come a cross as that. To say that I don't have some prejudices that I struggle with daily would be a bold faced lie...but I am working on that.

I could say exactly what other people want me too just to make it easy on myself but that would promote no growth in myself, nor would it challenge others to better their arguments and method of communicating. By recognizing my own areas for development I might be able to help others bridge a gap with their own.
 
no worries mono. but do you think this only based on a perceived tactical advantage or also because you yourself disapprove of "promiscuous" behaviour?

i am genuinely intrigued.

x
 
I totally see your point Ceoli and I agree with you. It certainly could come a cross as that. To say that I don't have some prejudices that I struggle with daily would be a bold faced lie...but I am working on that.

I could say exactly what other people want me too just to make it easy on myself but that would promote no growth in myself, nor would it challenge others to better their arguments and method of communicating. By recognizing my own areas for development I might be able to help others bridge a gap with their own.

perhaps you just answered my question? if so full respect for your honesty.

x
 
Don't get me wrong Dakid. I won't attack or try to shape things to fit my needs. That would never be my intention.
I simply won't identify with those that don't further my cause. What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine sort of thing. No hostility, just disassociation with certain terminologies if that is what is deemed necessary.

i just hope that attitude will ensure that you are never tempted to tell others that their practises are "not poly", and that you will stick you the concept "whats yours is yours" as you say - what others describe as poly is true for them its just not how you practise poly yourself. a valid and understandable distinction for you to make, as long as it contains acknowledgement that their poly is also poly.

i thank you for sharing your thoughts so openly and honestly.

x
 
I totally see your point Ceoli and I agree with you. It certainly could come a cross as that. To say that I don't have some prejudices that I struggle with daily would be a bold faced lie...but I am working on that.

I could say exactly what other people want me too just to make it easy on myself but that would promote no growth in myself, nor would it challenge others to better their arguments and method of communicating. By recognizing my own areas for development I might be able to help others bridge a gap with their own.

I just wonder how holding prejudices about other people's expression of poly that are the same prejudices that you hope others don't hold against you and your family helps to prevent the prejudice from affecting your family.
 
perhaps you just answered my question? if so full respect for your honesty.

x

Sadly, I do admit to having prejudices and a tendency to judge. I am working on this because I truly understand that what others do does not affect what I have or do.

I have a tendency to look at a situation and put myself into it which usually results in a big "not in this fucking lifetime".

For some reason I can look at a single person who plays the field or dates multiple people and totally get it. It is when the word amory or love is woven in with this activity that I slip into judgment. Clearly I have an issue with differing ideas of the word "love" and the depth it implies. But this is my issue...I own it and will deal with it. It is not something directed at specific people but at concepts and general practices. Again...my issue, my burden.

I just wonder how holding prejudices about other people's expression of poly that are the same prejudices that you hope others don't hold against you and your family helps to prevent the prejudice from affecting your family.

The only way I see is to not claim to be anything but in a multi-partner relationship. I gave too much information out in the past and it lead to judgment that took a long time to dispel.

I don't expect everyone to get over all prejudices. For those (including myself in some areas) it will just be a case of keeping their mouth shut.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i just hope that attitude will ensure that you are never tempted to tell others that their practises are "not poly", and that you will stick you the concept "whats yours is yours" as you say - what others describe as poly is true for them its just not how you practise poly yourself. a valid and understandable distinction for you to make, as long as it contains acknowledgement that their poly is also poly.


If he doesn't acknowledge it, does it make their poly any LESS poly than his poly?

It seems as though if you know yourself, you don't need to have others acknowledge that sort of thing. If I needed someone else to validate a label I gave myself, then I'd ask myself if that thing is really part of me or am I just trying to impress or shock people?
 
Back
Top